[2000] QCA 360
COURT OF APPEAL
PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
JONES J
Appeal No 9347 of 1999
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff/Respondent
and
DOONEY SUPERANNUATION PTY LTD
(ACN 073 346 282) AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE DOONEY SUPER FUND Defendant/Appellant
BRISBANE
..DATE 04/09/2000
JUDGMENT
PINCUS JA: This is an appeal in which an outline has been filed of a remarkable character, suggesting that the appeal has no substance and is frivolous.
Counsel for the respondent ask for dismissal of the appeal, on the ground that there has been no appearance on the appellant's side and that the appeal has no substance. The name of the appellant has been called three times outside the Court and there has been no appearance, and the matter has been called on well after the time listed.
When one has regard to those circumstances, together with the character of the outline, it appears to me that the proper orders are those which are sought by the respondent's counsel, that is, I would order that the appeal be dismissed and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs on an indemnity basis.
There has also been some discussion of whether an order should be made against legal practitioners involved.
Mr Logan SC has helpfully given us some information on that subject which might suggest that it is not an appropriate course. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the question may require further investigation, and I would reserve the question of costs against persons other than the appellant for further consideration.
Subject to that, I would dismiss the appeal with costs on an indemnity basis.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
JONES J: And I agree also.
-----
- AGLC
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Plaintiff/ v Dooney Superannuation Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 360
- Case
- [2000] QCA 360
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at hand were whether the appeal had any merit and, if not, what the appropriate sanction should be for the defendant's failure to appear. The court was also required to determine if any additional costs should be imposed on the legal practitioners involved. Given the circumstances of the case, the court needed to balance the principles of justice with the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was frivolous and lacked substance, as evidenced by the defendant's repeated failure to appear. The judges concluded that the proper course of action was to dismiss the appeal and order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis. The court also noted that while the matter of imposing costs on legal practitioners might require further investigation, they would reserve this decision for later consideration. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.